The Wrapper Project
asn at samba.org
Wed Nov 20 15:06:08 MST 2013
On Wednesday 20 November 2013 22:17:24 Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 08:41:02PM +0100, Andreas Schneider wrote:
> > On Wednesday 20 November 2013 19:59:35 Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 01:23:33PM -0500, Simo wrote:
> > > > Yes the code that originated Andreas projects came from Samba.
> > > > Andreas ran away with to try and see if it could be greatly improved.
> > > >
> > > > For a lot of time it was just hacking around to see if it would work.
> > > >
> > > > Some times that approach works better, and I am certain in this case
> > > > did, because it would have been unacceptable to the samba community to
> > > > break "make test" to do experiments.
> > >
> > > Nobody is objecting to Andreas' taking this code and hacking on it.
> > >
> > > > I really do not see why this is a big deal to be honest. Why does it
> > > > make any difference how the code was built ?
> > >
> > > Andreas is proposing moving a chunk of code out of the Samba codebase
> > > taking over maintenance of it, removing it from Samba and having Samba
> > > depend on that code. 
> > >
> > > This means that code to which everybody in the Samba team could easily
> > > contribute to previously is now harder to edit, harder to follow, and
> > > changes to it are no longer necessarily audited.
> > Yes, that was set in stone. No review is allowed by others! Where kind of
> > a
> > game do we play here now? :)
> We're only pointing out the consequences of the proposal we're not
> comfortable with - that those libraries are being developed
> but still proposed for use in Samba.
> Nobody said the way these libraries are developed was set in stone; in fact,
> I think the reason it was mentioned at all was so that it hopefully can
> > > > What difference does it make if you get a review request of 200
> > > > patches
> > > > that basically reworks completely most of the code or a request to
> > > > review something of equal size with a git tree somewhere else ?
> > > >
> > > > Sound like you are offended that some code was done on someone's own
> > > > without your knowledge, is that the problem ?
> > >
> > > No, I'm objecting to the suggested changes *to Samba* on the grounds
> > > that it makes it harder for me to make changes to and follow the
> > > evolution of a piece of code that I originally wrote.
> > And it makes it harder for *me* get them correctly working as pre-loadable
> > wrappers and to propose it to other projects.
> How does it make it harder for you? What is problematic about hosting those
> git repositories on git.samba.org, with commit access for and review from
> the rest of the team?
Hey, I've discussed this already with Volker, likely also on the list, that
the plan is to put them on git.samba.org and to go back to a mandatory review
once they are considered stable. My work is not finished and I'm still
struggling with some parts. A lot of tests are till missing. Only nss_wrapper
has 75% code coverage. Till now nobody asked me if we could create repos for
the three of them on git.samba.org and create hooks to get mails while I still
work on them and have daily changes of things I just need to try out. Maybe
this would be a start.
Often I commit code on my machine to test it later on Solaris. After some time
I find out that the way was wrong how to do it and change it. Currently I'm
struggling with syscall() on different platforms and need to be able to change
code quickly to find the right way to do it or test it.
> As said in my original reply in July: it's great you're improving
> this code and making it usable by external projects. I agree
> with Andrew that we should keep the control over the version of
> this code that we rely on in Samba under the Samba project umbrella.
See above ...
Andreas Schneider GPG-ID: CC014E3D
Samba Team asn at samba.org
More information about the samba-technical